CHAPTER FOUR SECTION SEVEN: TWO KINDS OF CRITICISM OF DÜHRING
In this section Lenin points out that the so called Russian "Marxist" Machists, Valentinov and Bogdanov, try to show the weaknesses of materialism by criticizing the ideas of contemporary bourgeois materialists such as Buchner [1824-1899] Vogt [1817-1895] and Moleschott [1822-1893]. They then apply these criticisms to Marxist materialism.
This is a big distortion according to Lenin. No one has criticized the bourgeois materialists more than Marx and Engels. But Marx and Engels criticized them for the limitations in their materialism, not for the materialism itself, which is what the Machists object to.
Engels points out three basic limitations of the bourgeois materialists. They did not advance beyond the materialism they inherited from the eighteenth century-- i.e., they did not develop it. The three limitations are, first, they were mechanical materialists. Today we would call them "reductionists.” Engels says (in his Ludwig Feuerbach) that they indulged in "the exclusive application of the standards of mechanics to processes of a chemical and organic nature."
Second was the “anti-dialectical character of their philosophy.” Because of this Engels calls them metaphysical materialists, using "metaphysics" as equivalent to "non-dialectical." This usage has spread in Marxism but it is not the way the word is used in philosophy and it sometimes causes misunderstandings, especially when people talk about dialectics as a form of metaphysics.
Third, Lenin says, "was the preservation of idealism 'up above', in the realm of the social sciences, a non-understanding of historical materialism." So M & E were not attacking them because of their materialism but because they were not materialist enough. For not seeing that, Lenin calls Valentinov and Bogdanov "ignoramuses."
The rest of this section is basically a repeat of the above arguments applied to Dühring. The Machists in Germany attacked him as an extreme leftist materialist, while Engels didn't think much of Dühring as a philosopher of materialism at all. This is the reason for the section's title. While the Machists thought Dühring was too much of a materialist, Lenin says, "For Engels, on the contrary, Dühring was not a sufficiently steadfast, clear and consistent materialist."
SECTION EIGHT: HOW COULD J. DIETZGEN HAVE FOUND FAVOUR WITH THE REACTIONARY PHILOSOPHERS?
We have talked about Dietzgen before. He was a self educated worker who arrived at Dialectical Materialism on his own, but had sometimes a confused way of expressing himself. Lenin writes, "Dietzgen, unlike Engels, expresses his thoughts in a vague, unclear, mushy way. But apart from his defects of exposition and individual mistakes he not unsuccessfully champions the ’materialist theory of knowledge’, ‘dialectical materialism.’”
At one time his writings were well known on the left and he was a big influence. But today he is not so well known. This is no doubt because the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin are widely available and much clearer.
Some of the Machists appealed to Dietzgen to support their views but at heart he was a true materialist and follower of Marx and Engels. Lenin says, "J. Dietzgen could find favour with the reactionary philosophers because he occasionally gets muddled."
At the close of this section Lenin lists the "socialist authorities." They were, in 1908: Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Paul Lafargue* [1842-1911], Franz Mehring** [1846-1919], and Karl Kautsky [1854-1938]. We know Kautsky fell from Grace due to his support of WWI. The new list then became Marx, Engels, Lenin. After Lenin died Stalin added himself. Stalin's theoretical writings were never on the same level as Marx, Engels and Lenin and he was removed from the list in 1956 (for violations of socialist legality and for creating a cult around himself). He also killed many innocent people in a drive to always be numero uno). Different national parties often try to make their ephemeral leaders "socialist authorities" but this rarely succeeds. Mao is still holding on in some parties, but for the wrong reasons . Gramsci is highly respected in some circles, not to mention Che. My own feeling is that a generation from now the list will be Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao, Ho, Castro and probably someone we haven’t heard from yet.
* A famous quote from Marx concerns Paul Lafargue’s views at one time:
"Lafargue was the subject of a famous quotation by Karl Marx. Shortly before Marx died in 1883, he wrote a letter to Lafargue and the French Workers' Party leader Jules Guesde, both of whom already claimed to represent "Marxist" principles. Marx accused them of "revolutionary phrase-mongering" and of denying the value of reformist struggles. This exchange is the source of Marx's remark, reported by Friedrich Engels: "ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste" ("what is certain is that [if they are Marxists, then] I myself am not a Marxist")."-- Wikipedia This sentence is the essence of Lenin’s famous work Left-Wing Communism an Infantile Disorder.” Both Marx’s sentence, and Lenin’s book, are also constantly misappropriated by social democrats and revisionists to water down Marxism-Leninism.
** Franz Mehring wrote the first (and some think the best) biography of Karl Marx. He was also one of the three top leaders of the Spartacist League along with Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg.
CHAPTER FIVE: THE RECENT REVOLUTION IN NATURAL SCIENCE AND PHILOSOPHICAL IDEALISM
(Preliminary remarks before Section 1)
Lenin's preliminary remarks are to remind us that he is not dealing with physics but with epistemology. His time was a time of revolutionary advances in physics-- relativity theory, quantum mechanics, radioactivity, etc., similar to our times-- i.e., string theory, multiple universes, the big bang, etc. The "Marxist" Machists were using the new developments in physics in Lenin's day to try and attack materialism because many of the principles of that philosophy had been formulated before the "new" physics.
This being the case, it is good that Lenin quotes a passage from Ludwig Feuerbach in which Engels says that "with each epoch-making discovery even in the sphere of natural science ["not to speak of the history of mankind"], materialism has to change its form."
So, what are we to deal with in this chapter on (epistemology) physics? There are many new schools of physics, as well as philosophy, looking to meet up. If we want physics to be materialism's suitor we must show that the latter is the most compatible of the contending match ups.
SECTION ONE: THE CRISIS IN MODERN PHYSICS.
Well, from our point of view this is not "modern physics" so I am not going to spend a lot of time on it. The roots of our own contemporary physics however do go back to this time: the discovery of the electron, relativity, etc. The concept of the "ether" is still in use, however, at this time (1908).
Lenin discusses two books. First, The Value of Science by Henri Poincaré. This book says that the old physical "laws" are being undermined by the new discoveries. The author concludes that physics isn't really about an objective reality and he ends up saying, in his own words: "whatever is not thought is pure nothing." So, he is in the camp of Mach and the idealists.
The other book is by Abel Rey (1873-1940): The Physical Theory of the Modern Physicists. Lenin gives his take on Rey's views: "Anti-intellectualism is a doctrine that denies the rights or claims of reason. Hence, in its philosophical aspect, the essence of the 'crisis in modern physics' is that the old physics regarded its theories as 'real knowledge of the material world', i.e., a reflection of objective reality. The new trend in physics regards theories only as symbols, signs, and marks for practice, i.e., it denies the existence of an objective reality independent of our mind and reflected by it." In essence, Rey is saying that "matter" has disappeared!
Next Up: We will start with Section 2. "Matter Has Disappeared").
Thomas Riggins is a retired philosophy teacher (NYU, The New School of Social Research, among others) who received a PhD from the CUNY Graduate Center (1983). He has been active in the civil rights and peace movements since the 1960s when he was chairman of the Young People's Socialist League at Florida State University and also worked for CORE in voter registration in north Florida (Leon County). He has written for many online publications such as People's World and Political Affairs where he was an associate editor. He also served on the board of the Bertrand Russell Society and was president of the Corliss Lamont chapter in New York City of the American Humanist Association.